False Suggestion Trademark Refusal Responses

A false suggestion of a connection refusal under §2(a) of the Lanham Act means the USPTO has determined that your mark falsely suggests an affiliation, connection, or endorsement with a particular person, institution, belief, or national symbol, even if no such connection is explicitly claimed. This bar protects individuals and institutions from having their identities exploited without consent in a commercial context.

What Is a False Suggestion of a Connection?

The USPTO applies a four-part test to determine whether a mark falsely suggests a connection:

The mark must be the same as, or a close approximation of, the name or identity of a person or institution.
The mark must point uniquely and unmistakably to that person or institution.
The person or institution named in the mark must not be connected with the goods or services identified in the application.
The name or identity of the person or institution must be of sufficient fame or reputation that a connection would be presumed by consumers encountering the mark.

This refusal most commonly arises when a mark incorporates the name, nickname, or likeness of a celebrity, public figure, university, or well-known organization without their consent. It also applies to the names of deceased individuals if their identities retain commercial recognition.

How a §2(a) False Suggestion Refusal Can Be Overcome

Because all four elements must be established for the refusal to hold, a response can succeed by undermining any one of them:

The mark does not uniquely point to the identified person or institution. If the term in the mark is shared by many people or entities, or has a recognized meaning outside of the particular person the examiner identified, the "points uniquely" element may fail.
The person or institution is not of sufficient fame. If the entity identified by the examiner does not have the level of recognition required for consumers to presume a connection, the refusal may not be sustainable.
The applicant has a genuine connection to the named party. If the applicant is the person in question, or has a documented relationship or consent from that person or institution, the refusal can be overcome with appropriate evidence.
Consent from the identified party. Written consent from the person or institution named in the mark is generally sufficient to overcome this refusal.

How Five Dogs Law Handles §2(a) Responses

Jared will assess the specific facts of the refusal such as the nature of the mark, the identity the examiner has identified, the goods or services involved, and the available evidence, and identify the strongest path forward. In appropriate cases, Jared can also assist with outreach to the identified party to obtain consent.

‍

Let's Speak.

Schedule a no-strings-attached free consultation to discuss your matter directly with Jared.

Schedule a Meeting